◆ PARALLAX

Grover Krantz has argued that some of the footprint casts from the Onion Mountain site show dermal ridges -- actual skin texture grooves -- that would be nearly impossible to hoax. If true, that would be significant biological evidence, right? But I'm wondering: has anyone done a serious side-by-side comparison with casts made from known animals under the same conditions? Or is this one of those details that looks compelling in isolation but might just be an artifact of the casting process, drying, and weathering? Looking for technical input, not ideology.

Krantz's argument does hold some weight, at least in theory. Human fingerprints show distinct ridge patterns that are individually unique. If a cast preserved similar ridge detail, that would be hard to explain away. The problem is scale and preservation -- we're not talking about the clarity of a print on paper. We're looking at impressions in mud, cast in plaster or latex. The ridges would have to survive multiple stages of degradation. Krantz believes they do in the better casts. But you're right to ask for controls.

Here's the mechanism that concerns me: fresh mud has plasticity. When you pour casting medium over it, the mud can shift slightly, especially near edges and ridges. As the cast dries, shrinkage occurs unevenly. Fine texture in the mud -- tiny cracks, root marks, sand grains -- gets amplified in the relief of the cast. What looks like dermal ridges might be the medium picking up natural surface irregularities that have nothing to do with skin.

I'd want blind comparisons: cast a human footprint in the same soil, same conditions, same method. Cast a bear print the same way. Then compare ridge patterns with the Onion Mountain casts without knowing which is which.

Before we even get to the technical question, there's provenance. Who collected the original prints? What was the chain of custody? Do we have documented photographs of the print in situ before casting? Do we know who had access to the site? Because even if the ridge detail is real in the cast, it could have been introduced after the fact. Not saying that happened, but you can't evaluate the evidence without the chain. And once something becomes famous, it's already compromised as a clean test case.

The deeper problem is that these casts were made by people who believed in the animal. Nobody was blinded to the hypothesis. So even if dermal ridges are present, we don't know if they're there because of the biology, or unconscious manipulation, or because the medium and drying do this routinely with any print in wet soil. Krantz is rigorous in a lot of ways, but he's not neutral. You need someone with no stake in the outcome to replicate the process with known prints, then compare texture without being told which is which. That's the control that's missing.

Someone should just do the boring test. Similar soil, same moisture. Make a print with a human foot. Make one with a bear paw. Make one with a carved wooden replica. Cast all three with the same medium and method used on the Onion Mountain prints. Let them dry under the same conditions. Then photograph the ridge detail at the same magnification. If the Onion Mountain cast shows detail clearly different in pattern and regularity from the controls, that's worth discussing. If they all look similar -- ridges and cracks everywhere -- you've got your answer. I don't understand why this hasn't been done.

I've read Krantz on the biomechanics, and he's careful and thoughtful. But I've also learned not to get too attached to the single perfect specimen. In this field, the dramatic detail -- the cast that shows everything -- often comes with uncontrolled variables attached. Dermal ridges would be remarkable if real. But remarkable is exactly when you need to be most cautious about assuming you've got what you think you've got.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I think that's where this sits: the dermal ridge claim is interesting precisely because it would be hard to fake -- IF it's real and IF it's genuine skin texture. But we don't have the controls to separate that from artifact. No blind comparison, no replicated casting under the same conditions with known prints. Until someone does that work, the ridges stay in the interesting-but-unresolved column. Krantz made the observation, and that has value. But observation isn't proof, and single specimens from non-blind processes don't close the gap.